CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:

Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.

To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.

Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.

When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.

That's hilarious. Nothing indoctrinates children better than religion. And talk about unwise. You continued someone else's anecdotal fallacy (your go to fallacy) then you follow it up with an appeal to authority fallacy. Why do you have a go to fallacy? That's not wise at all.

Oh, and your appeal to authority fallacy is extra weak. Einstein didn't like your belief system either, and Newton didn't finish one of the things he was working on because he thought God did it. Newton is an example of why a belief in God is a bad thing.

"Albert Einstein was quoted in The New York Times, Nov. 9, 1930, saying: “I assert that the cosmic religious experience is the strongest and noblest driving force behind scientific research.”

"Walter Isaacson quoted Einstein in the article “Einstein and Faith,” Time 169, April 5, 2007, 47): “The fanatical atheists … are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who – in their grudge against the traditional ‘opium of the people’ – cannot bear the ‘music of the spheres.'”

According to Prince Hubertus (Ronald W. Clark, “Einstein: The Life and Times,” New York: World Publishing Company, 1971, p. 425), Einstein said: “In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views.”

Prompted by his colleague L. E. J. Brouwer Einstein read the philosopher Eric Gutkind's book Choose Life,[15] a discussion of the relationship between Jewish revelation and the modern world. On January 3, 1954 Einstein sent the following reply to Gutkind, "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends…. For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions."

When asked “You accept the historical existence of Jesus,” Einstein answered: “Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life.”

When asked “Have you read Emil Ludwig’s book on Jesus,” Einstein replied: “Emil Ludwig’s Jesus is shallow. Jesus is too colossal for the pen of phrasemongers, however artful. No man can dispose of Christianity with a bon mot! (witty remark)”

Though not believing in a personal God, The Saturday Evening Post, Oct. 26, 1929, published George Sylvester Viereck’s interview with Albert Einstein. When asked “To what extent are you influenced by Christianity,” Einstein answered: “As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene.”

"Science without religion is lame, and religion without science is blind"

"When the solution is simple, God is answering"

"The more i study science, the more i believe GOD"

So are we saying he was mentally imbalanced? No not me because...

"All religions, arts and science are branches of the same tree" Eistein.

If you aren't implying that, then you are an idiot for bringing him up.

hmmm

Spinoza's God is not all powerful.

If you read well about his God, he said it's nearness to that of spinoza's and lack of anyother more appropriate word of classification makes him simply put it as that of spinoza. Because he also said he wasn't a pantheist.

If you disagree and don't give a reason why, then the only one confused is yourself

no. I said no more not to compound your confusion.

He didn't agree with you or atheists.

Who am i?

t doesn't mean the opposite though. The God you believe in is very much associated with our actions.

So einstein didn't believe in this one, thats all am saying! I used jesus's example as what he didn't believe in.

Wow. Your teachers have suffered a great deal.

If you think he was confused, why do you use him? The fact that you think you aren't confused and Einstein was further points to delusions on your part.

You don't einstein to be perfect do you?

Every agnostic, atheist, deist,theist, skeptic, humanist, freethinker, moralist or pple being nihilistic are confused in oneway or the other.

Einstein's was just a little more severe and very apparent. He said he wasn't atheist, pantheist, judaist, christian etc. yet believed a God existed because there are no laws(science) without a law maker and therefore must exist but too big or mystical for the limited human mind to comprehend. So he made statements the more he studies science,the more he knows God.

(Which i have stated in one of my debates "science proves God" before finding out about einsteins thoughts even. Because i used to think he was atheist and didn't want to read anything on him). If einstein was alive today, i could help him find God.

If you read well about his God, he said it's nearness to that of spinoza's and lack of anyother more appropriate word of classification makes him simply put it as that of spinoza. Because he also said he wasn't a pantheist.

If you actually read you will find he didn't talk about an all peril God.

no. I said no more not to compound your confusion.

You think that not communicating helps with reducing confusion. That just means you are terrible at communicating.

Who am i?

Nobody. You can't even be considered a debater.

So einstein didn't believe in this one, thats all am saying!

That's what I was saying.

I used jesus's example as what he didn't believe in.

Again, why are you bringing up the things he didn't believe in that you do believe?

Wow. Your teachers have suffered a great deal.

My teachers didn't say the opposite of what the meant when they taught me, that's why I can easily pick apart your bullshit.

You don't einstein to be perfect do you?

Wait, now you are attacking the authority you picked for your appeal to authority fallacy. Wow. You are even bad at being bad at arguing.

Every agnostic, atheist, deist,theist, skeptic, humanist, freethinker, moralist or pple being nihilistic are confused in oneway or the other.

But, nowhere near as confused as you.

He said he wasn't atheist, pantheist, judaist, christian etc. yet believed a God existed because there are no laws(science) without a law maker and therefore must exist but too big or mystical for the limited human mind to comprehend. So he made statements the more he studies science,the more he knows God.

Which part of that is severe and apparent confusion?

If einstein was alive today, i could help him find God.

You can't even help yourself make a fallacy, how are you going to help anyone find God?

To claim that a lack of religion based on evidence, reasoning and science is in itself a religion is absurd. atheists don't rely on faith to tell us about a magic man in the sky. We rely on our own brains.

If Atheism cannot indoctrinate children as well as religion that's because even a child can see that it makes no sense, thus it is hard to indoctrinate any child with a brain. What a horrible argument...

You have not made a single statement in this website that demonstrates any sort of critical thinking. Why don't you show is your critical thinking skills instead of just showing is the conclusions your critical thinking skills have brought you over the years? Don't you think it would be beneficial to show the reasoning that used the critical thinking instead of just telling people what you learned?

Not gonna happen. You have no desire to have serious debate. You are a drive by poster who makes no points. You will get only the same in return from me. In 17,000 posts, you only created 40 debates. You aren't a debater. You are a clown on a debate site doing what clowns do best... be clowns.

Interesting. Let's examine which one of us really has no desire to debate. You are proud of not showing your critical thinking skills. I on the other hand constantly ask you for your thoughts on the subject in order to have a conversation. Just like with all aspects of your life you have things backwards.

No. You like insults and drive by posts. You aren't a debater. You don't even know how to put together an argument. I've given you exactly what you've given me, which is jack shit. You don't want to debate, so I won't debate you. That's how that works. You dial out, I dial out. You go to the insult academy, you get insults. It's like fucking magic.

I don't want to convince you. I just want to piss you off because you don't want to debate. That's my whole mission with you, to emulate you and be a complete dipshit. You don't want intellectual discussion, thus I'll give you the same bullshit you dish out.

I was born into a Christian family, went to church every Sunday for almost 15 years and then I realized "This shit makes absolutely no sense.". After the sudden realization that god was about as viable as Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny I strayed from my parents' religion. My entire family still goes to church and always ask me to go too, to which I decline.

This claim that parents teach kids to be atheists could be flipped both ways, however it's more than likely a parent makes their kid religious than irreligious.